Death of George Floyd and Subsequent Riots.

[Cope]

Sigh... This is using too many words to say so little. You're merely trying to excuse Rittenhouse while assuming the worst of any person he encountered. I don't really have much interest in entertaining your excuses and attempts at distortions. Good luck.

Gainsaying is not an argument.

[PointOfViewGun]

Gainsaying is not an argument.

It's certainly not.

[Heathen Hammer]

The mental gymnastics one would have to practice to blame teenager who came to put out fires for defending himself, when 3 antifa terrorists tried to kill him for putting out fires (or looking like the guy who did). Either that or just siding with antifa terrorists. What's next, blaming some Iraqi kid for shooting ISIS members in self-defense?

[Infidel144]

The situation was created because he put out an illegal dumpster fire.

This may not actually be the case.
While there is video of Rittenhouse with a fire extinguisher, it is looking as though someone else put out the fire. This other person was dressed very similarly to Rittenhouse: baseball cap, same color t-shirt, AR style rifle etc.
It is possible that Rosenbaum, the convicted pedophile (molester of multiple children, age 11 and under) that the leftists adore, may have mistaken Rittenhouse for the dude that put out the fire.

[PointOfViewGun]

The mental gymnastics one would have to practice to blame teenager who came to put out fires for defending himself, when 3 antifa terrorists tried to kill him for putting out fires (or looking like the guy who did). Either that or just siding with antifa terrorists. What's next, blaming some Iraqi kid for shooting ISIS members in self-defense?

Rittenhouse didn't go down to Kenosha to put down fires.
Rittenhouse didn't put down any fire.
Fires can not be put down with rifles.
People Rittenhouse shot were no Antifa members.
People Rittenhouse shot were not terrorists.
Likening what happened in Kenosha with an Iraqi kid defending against ISIS is as delusional as it gets.

[Heathen Hammer]

Rittenhouse didn't go down to Kenosha to put down fires.
Rittenhouse didn't put down any fire.
Fires can not be put down with rifles.
People Rittenhouse shot were no Antifa members.
People Rittenhouse shot were not terrorists.
Likening what happened in Kenosha with an Iraqi kid defending against ISIS is as delusional as it gets.

That's a bunch of demagogic statements that contradict video evidence of what actually happened.

[PointOfViewGun]

That's a bunch of demagogic statements that contradict video evidence of what actually happened.

First of all, check here:

demagogic
adjective disapproving
UK /ˌdem.əˈɡɒdʒ.ɪk/ US /ˌdem.əˈɡɑː.dʒɪk/

trying to win support by exciting the emotions of ordinary people rather than by having good or morally right ideas:

His unfunded public spending promises are particularly demagogic.
Demagogic politicians were tempted to exaggerate the threat of communism.

Second, nothing in the evidence the defense provides contradicts any of the statements I made there.

[Heathen Hammer]

First of all, check here:

"trying to win support by exciting the emotions of ordinary people rather than by having good or morally right ideas:"

Fires can not be put down with rifles.

Textbook example.

Second, nothing in the evidence the defense provides contradicts any of the statements I made there.

Gainsaying isn't an argument.
Video shows Rittenhouse being attacked for putting out fires or just looking like a dude who did put out fires. It shows that thugs that attacked him were part of anti/BLM mob. So everything that I said was correct as per the video evidence of what happened. You are just said "nu uh" without providing any evidence.

[PointOfViewGun]

"trying to win support by exciting the emotions of ordinary people rather than by having good or morally right ideas:"
Textbook example.

You really need to try harder with that for it to make sense. What's really interesting that you must be assuming that it makes sense...

Gainsaying isn't an argument.
Video shows Rittenhouse being attacked for putting out fires or just looking like a dude who did put out fires. It shows that thugs that attacked him were part of anti/BLM mob. So everything that I said was correct as per the video evidence of what happened. You are just said "nu uh" without providing any evidence.

Accusing someone of "gainsaying" then preceding to describe evidence using "or" is not really a good tactic.

The video you presented didn't contradict what I said:
It doesn't show any of the individuals involved with the shooting starting fires.
(Though the video suggests protesters were setting fire inside dumpster, not businesses.)
It doesn't show Rittenhouse extinguishing any fire.
It doesn't identify any of the people shot as Antifa members.
It doesn't identify any of the people shot as terrorists.

You are, of course, trying to equate any BLM protester with Antifa and terrorism. That connection is merely your own creation that's not even suggested by Rittenhouse's defense. The burden lies on you to prove your claims.

[Cope]

The burden lies on you to prove your claims.

If your position is that Rittenhouse is a murderer, the onus is absolutely on you to prove it.

[Heathen Hammer]

You really need to try harder with that for it to make sense. What's really interesting that you must be assuming that it makes sense...

Divination isn't an argument either.

Accusing someone of "gainsaying" then preceding to describe evidence using "or" is not really a good tactic.

The video you presented didn't contradict what I said:
It doesn't show any of the individuals involved with the shooting starting fires.
(Though the video suggests protesters were setting fire inside dumpster, not businesses.)
It doesn't show Rittenhouse extinguishing any fire.
It doesn't identify any of the people shot as Antifa members.
It doesn't identify any of the people shot as terrorists.

You are, of course, trying to equate any BLM protester with Antifa and terrorism. That connection is merely your own creation that's not even suggested by Rittenhouse's defense. The burden lies on you to prove your claims.

Those are just your opinions.
Video footage of the events proves otherwise - including rational assumption that Rittenhouse was likely confused for the man who was putting out fires and was dressed in similar way.
Also as Cope said, burden of proof of Rittenhouse's guilt is on you not him.

[PointOfViewGun]

Those are just your opinions.
Video footage of the events proves otherwise - including rational assumption that Rittenhouse was likely confused for the man who was putting out fires and was dressed in similar way.
Also as Cope said, burden of proof of Rittenhouse's guilt is on you not him.

If its my opinion you can easily show it otherwise by providing time marks from that video where it shows it. Otherwise, what was it? Gainsaying isn't an argument? This time that's an actually accurate statement. At this moment, we're not discussing Rittenhouse's guilt. We're discussing your claims about the incident. Cope's attempt to shift focus is merely an attempt to cover up the failure of your claims.

[Vanoi]

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/b...-changes-story

A key witness in the case turns out to have changed his story months after the shooting from his initial interview with the police.

The sole witness who heard the police announce themselves is now unreliable at best. Meaning not one witness can reliably corroborate the LMPDs claim they knocked and announced themselves.

At this point the LMPD's entire account of the case has been utterly ridiculous and is just getting worse.

How do you base your entire story on that of an unreliable witness?

[Heathen Hammer]

If its my opinion you can easily show it otherwise by providing time marks from that video where it shows it. Otherwise, what was it? Gainsaying isn't an argument? This time that's an actually accurate statement. At this moment, we're not discussing Rittenhouse's guilt. We're discussing your claims about the incident. Cope's attempt to shift focus is merely an attempt to cover up the failure of your claims.

You are the one making nonsensical statements in your posts like "guns can't put out fires" when the video actually shows the guard in green tshirt (almost identical to Rittenhouse) putting out fire and drawing anger of the antifa "protesters" for preventing them from setting a gas station on fire.
The rest is just your baseless assumptions, since no evidence has been presented to prove them.

[PointOfViewGun]

You are the one making nonsensical statements in your posts like "guns can't put out fires" when the video actually shows the guard in green tshirt (almost identical to Rittenhouse) putting out fire and drawing anger of the antifa "protesters" for preventing them from setting a gas station on fire.
The rest is just your baseless assumptions, since no evidence has been presented to prove them.

I see that you're unable to address what I actually say. Thanks for making it this obvious.

[irontaino]

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/b...-changes-story

A key witness in the case turns out to have changed his story months after the shooting from his initial interview with the police.

The sole witness who heard the police announce themselves is now unreliable at best. Meaning not one witness can reliably corroborate the LMPDs claim they knocked and announced themselves.

At this point the LMPD's entire account of the case has been utterly ridiculous and is just getting worse.

How do you base your entire story on that of an unreliable witness?

What? The police lying through their teeth to cover their own asses?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Heathen Hammer]

What? The police lying through their teeth to cover their own asses?

And thanks to the dumb looting "protesters", nobody is talking about the real culprit here - the judge that handed them the warrant.

[Vanoi]

And thanks to the dumb looting "protesters", nobody is talking about the real culprit here - the judge that handed them the warrant.

The police requested the warrant and the police fabricated evidence for the warrant as well. Judges are not responsible for the poor and illegal actions of police.

[Heathen Hammer]

The police requested the warrant and the police fabricated evidence for the warrant as well. Judges are not responsible for the poor and illegal actions of police.

Source? So far all we've heard is that FBI was basically just looking into this, so that hasn't been confirmed. In general, no-knock raids are against rights and privacy, so judge should be blamed regardless of whether evidence was fabricated or not.

[Vanoi]

Source? So far all we've heard is that FBI was basically just looking into this, so that hasn't been confirmed. In general, no-knock raids are against rights and privacy, so judge should be blamed regardless of whether evidence was fabricated or not.

https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/louisv...341bd2866.html

A U.S. postal inspector in Louisville said Metro police did not use his office to verify that a drug suspect was receiving packages at Breonna Taylor's apartment, one of the factors listed in officers' request for a "no-knock" warrant for her home.

Police claimed Taylor was receiving drug packages at her home but the USPS inspector stated she was not. The police used this as evidence for their search warrant even though its not true. Thus they fabricated evidence.

Judges are not responsible for the actions of the police. Stop trying to take the responsibility out of the hands of police who broke the law.